Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography: Difference between revisions

Question - Should the nickname, The Burg (stylized as the 'Burg from sources), be included in the St. Petersburg, Florida's infobox? Please indicate support or oppose of the nickname with a short explanatory paragraph. 21:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Because of fact we cant use the "Real" coat of arms because of copyright....and the home-made rendition of the arms has been constantly rejected during other RfC. People have been looking for an alternative. Most recently this image of the Great Seal of Canada has been proposed to be added to the article inlue of the coat of arms (currently in the article). The question being asked here is in 2 parts....First does the image merit inclusion in the lead (is it a image that represents Canada that it should be a lead image) and secondly is this specific image of good enough quality to be a lead image in an FA article (can people see what the image is all about).

• Questions that have been asked and there is no debate over

Yes other articles use the seal as a symbol in the lead - eg. United States

Yes the Great Seal of Canada is a "National Symbol" - source

RfC prepared by Moxy (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The dispute ranges on whether the statement about Aisha reaching puberty is WP:UNDUE, whether the paragraph itself is WP:UNDUE, or if a footnote should be included to say that young marriages during the 600s was normal.(UTC)

The discussion and additional sources can be found on this talk page in sections: 1) Aisha "reaching age of puberty", 2) Removal of paragraph, 3) The thing that should actually be disputed, 4) Proposal for changes on Aisha's mariage. The discussion most relevant to the questions below can be found in #2 and #4. Eperoton (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

More information: At present, the article on Asatru serves as a redirect to Ásatrú, which is a disambiguation page. I would suggest that both articles should be converted into redirects that take the reader straight to Heathenry (new religious movement). In effect, the Icelandic term "Ásatrú", and its Anglicised spelling of "Asatru", are synonyms for a new religious movement that is termed "Heathenry" within the academic literature on the subject. To quote from the (academically sourced, GA-rated) Wikipedia article on Heathenry:

Another name for the faith is the Icelandic Ásatrú, which is more commonly rendered as Asatru in North America; this term translates as "allegiance to the Æsir" – the latter being a sub-set of deities in Norse mythology – with practitioners being known as Asatruer.^[1] This term is favored by practitioners who focus on the deities of Scandinavia,^[2] although is problematic as many Asatruer worship deities and entities other than the Æsir, such as the Vanir, valkyries, elves, and dwarves.^[3] Although initially a popular term of self-designation, usage of Ásatrú has declined as the religion has aged, particularly in Scandinavia.^[4]

I believe that this should be a fairly un-controversial change and would like to gain consensus in support of it from various otherwise un-involved editors. Other articles devoted to synonyms for Heathenry (such as Vanatru and Forn Sed) already exist as redirects that take the reader straight to it, and I believe that these two articles should join them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The question is put forth to Wikipedia editors whether to Support the addition of the contested material in a footnote or Oppose it. For illustrative purposes, the extract from the cable is quoted herebelow in full:

124/122669 Minister Zech to State Secretary Weizsäcker SECRET, The Hague, February 19, 1940. Dear Weizsäcker: The Duke of W., about whom I wrote to you in my letter of the 27th of last month, has said that the Allied War Council devoted an exhaustive discussion at its last meeting to the situation that would arise if Germany invaded Belgium. Reference was made throughout to a German invasion plan said to have been found in an airplane that made a forced landing in Belgium. On the military side, it was held that the best plan would be to make the main resistance effort in the line behind the Belgian-French border, even at the risk that Belgium should be occupied by us. The political authorities are said to have at first opposed this plane: after the humiliation suffered in Poland, it would be impossible to surrender Belgium and the Netherlands also to the Germans. In the end, however, the political authorities became more yielding. Heil Hitler! Zech

Is just being a member of Hazrat Hussein ibn Ali R.A's Army, or having connections with him enough to establish a person's notability? Even if he is otherwise non notable?
For example some pages, many of which are borderline hagiographic use this to establish notability, without any other substance. These pages include Qasim ibn Hasan, Ali al-Akbar ibn Husayn, Ali al-Asghar ibn Husayn, Abdullah ibn Ja'far, Abu Hajal Muslim ibn Awsaja, Habib ibn Madhahir, Burayr ibn Khuzayr al-Hamadani, Nafi' bin Hilal al-Jamali, Zuhayr ibn Qayn, Abdullah ibn Omayr Abu Wahab al Kalbi, John bin Huwai.
Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Change it to singular. Due to Royal Households in the UK not being a real thing. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"In September 1939, Britain imposed a selective blockade of Italy. Coal from Germany, which was shipped out of Rotterdam, was declared contraband. The Germans promised to keep up shipments by train, over the Alps, and Britain offered to supply all of Italy's needs in exchange for Italian armaments. The Italians could not agree to the latter terms without shattering their alliance with Germany.[28] On 2 February 1940, however, Mussolini approved a draft contract with the Royal Air Force to provide 400 Caproni aircraft; yet he scrapped the deal on 8 February. The British intelligence officer, Francis Rodd, believed that Mussolini was convinced to reverse policy by German pressure in the week of 2–8 February, a view shared by the British ambassador in Rome, Percy Loraine.[29] On 1 March, the British announced that they would block all coal exports from Rotterdam to Italy.[28][29] Italian coal was one of the most discussed issues in diplomatic circles in the spring of 1940. In April Britain began strengthening their Mediterranean Fleet to enforce the blockade. Despite French misgivings, Britain rejected concessions to Italy so as not to "create an impression of weakness".[30] Germany supplied Italy with about one million tons of coal a month beginning in the spring of 1940, an amount that even exceeded Mussolini's demand of August 1939 that Italy receive six million tons of coal for its first twelve months of war.[31]"

Option 1: Yes, leave the material in the article as it is and maintain the status quo
Option 2: Yes, but move a condensed version of it to note 'D'
Option 3: Remove the material from this article (It is currently reproduced on the Military history of Italy during World War II article)
Option 4: Other recommendations

Discussion

I acknowledge that the above is well sourced and covers an often overlooked period of the build-up to war with Italy, and it is for this reason why it was copied over to the article dealing with the Italian war effort. My position is that the the latter article (and probably the ones covering the British military history of the war) is the best place for this information, where it can be put into the correct context; without context it can, as highlighted by an un-involved editor in the above section, be mistaken for either Italy being pushed/forced into the war or having a legitimate reason to go to war.

Thus far, I have seen only one source that actually makes this argument but even then it comes with the disclaimer that Mussolini wanted war regardless. The vast majority of sources that I have read describe Mussolini's declaration of war on the Allied powers (and France in particular) as being part of a long-term imperial policy aimed at carving out a larger empire for Italy, and the timing of such a move being tied to the fact France was largely occupied with the German onslaught. The article does state that clearly (with the exception of this paragraph) and details other fringe theories in note D (where I would concede at least some mention of this could be made). Sources can be reproduced, but can be seen on this page in the sections "Italian decision to go to war" and "Third opinion again".EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Wider explanation: This article is devoted to Odinism, which is a term that a minority of practitioners of the modern Pagan religion of Heathenry prefer to use in reference to their religion. As it stands, this article is in an absolutely terrible state. It consists almost entirely of material that is not-referenced, material that is cited to non-reliable, primary and self-published sources, and material on pre-Christian belief systems which are being used to bolster claims about this new religious movement. The latter has been placed there by practitioners of the religious movement in question, and reflects their own belief that the modern religion really is a direct continuation of the extinct belief system; this is not a position supported in the academic literature on either pre-Christian belief systems among the Germanic peoples or on the modern Pagan religion, and thus it is being used to simply un-critically promote an Odinist (or one Odinist's) view about their religion. Accordingly, all of this material absolutely has to be deleted.

As it stands, the vast majority of this article was written by User:ThorLives, and is currently being stubbornly defended from deletion by User:Holtj, who is engaging in Edit Warring in order to do so. ThorLives is currently the subject of a debated Topic Ban here as a result of their longstanding Disruptive Editing to Heathenry-themed articles, and there is also a Sock Puppet investigation here examining whether ThorLives and Holtj are one and the same individual. As User:Snowded pointed out over at Talk:Heathenry (new religious movement), ThorLives simply developed the Odinism article as a Coatrack to present the Heathen religion (to which they belonged) in a manner of their choosing; they did so after myself and other editors put a stop to their disruptive editing over at the Heathenry article itself. It was made abundantly clear to ThorLives in the discussions at that page that the quality of their contributions was sub-par and in contravention of Wikipedia's Reliable Sources policy, however they used exactly the same sources (and lack of them) when expanding the Odinism article too. Textbook disruptive editing.

It is undeniable that the improperly referenced material should be removed and that Holtj should desist from re-adding it in their desire to preserve ThorLives' (poor quality) contributions. However, if that is removed then there is basically nothing left of the article except a few passages that duplicate what is already said over at the Heathenry article. Given this, as well as the fact that "Odinism" is essentially a partial synonym for Heathenry, and indeed that the Odinism article was originally created as a redirect to start with, I believe that this article should be converted into a redirect to Heathenry (new religious movement). Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)